That's rather presumptuous. You should be wary making unfounded accusations.

Actually, TechRadar ought to be wary about publishing test results that nobody who has retained any objectivity, and who is not swept-up in some kind of "fanboy fandango", finds to be believable.

When camera testers (surprisingly, and rather strangely) make no mention at all of the RAW processors/converters used in the process of testing and directly comparing camera models they are
inviting speculation
as to what it is that they
are
using. Add that to unbelievable results, and nobody should be surprised when people speculate as to what exists unstated "under the covers".

Emotional frenzies that surround a new camera release seem to divorce some from reality. Seeing some launch into delusions of machine-induced granduer speaks volumes as to their intelligence ...

What seems truly presumptuous to me is your annointing yourself as some magisterial arbitrator of merely alleged "truths" that you yourself have no idea of the veracity of. Kind of humorous, indeed - and it makes at least this reader wonder why you are appearing to emotionally identify so with total strangers. Could it be because they are whispering things into your ear that you would like to believe ? If you are somehow offended by my thoughts, or worried about my soul, perhaps you should get a firm grip upon yourself forthwith ... or could that be the problem in the first place?

The way that you layed-into
Iliah Borg
recently spoke volumes as to your "better judgment" ...

By the way
: Did you happen to notice my use of the terms "(potentially)" and "(if so)" below ?

Detail Man
wrote:

jkrumm
wrote:

I would guess they are using Viewer to convert to Tiffs, and Viewer clearly has a strong noise filter now for the EM5, even when you turn it off, so it's not surprising they are clean.

I don't know for sure - but I suspect that the Olympus Viewer is not compatible with the (directly compared) Sony NEX-7, Fuji X Pro 1, and Panasonic GX1 RAW image-files ... implying that they are (potentially) using different RAW converters/processors for each different brand of camera model.

Very bad form, indeed. And (if so), no wonder they do not explicitly talk about it. Very flakey.

.

In the news
:

Macxcam wrote:

I hope you don't mind me asking: What RAW software did you use? (And with what settings?)